1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Obviously your brain is tuned in to a different frequency. Cant help that

What so called brain are you referring to?

It is certainly never used for rational thought!

8 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I reckon the people that think those jokesters/hoaxsters actually went to the moon are on par with the fools that think covid jabs were 'safe n effective' or even necessary.

The governing elites keep their fingers Xed, that the nonsense served up to the populace, will not be rumbled. We are the billions; they are just 5,120 all told.

Why has it turned out this way? Apathy, ignorance and democracy. Fellow humans; we must get off our knees and confront the evil ruling us.

I do wonder if, for some people, distrust of society can grow from a mix of personality, disappointment, isolation, certain habits, and sometimes mental strain. Not always because they see deeper truth, but because the mind can start rewarding suspicion, pattern-seeking, and doubt. Then everything official starts to look false, and every doubt feels like proof.

I do not want to generalise, because people are different, but I have noticed that some who went very deep into this kind of thinking were also struggling with other things in life.

5 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

What so called brain are you referring to?

It is certainly never used for rational thought!

That's your role, scottie, to add a touch of educated rationality to the debate. By the way, I never got your take on this last month, on the issue of 'real science'. A good faith omission, no doubt:

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

distrust of society can grow from a mix of personality

yes, and also because many human beings do in fact exhibit criminal minds. if a group of people decide to rob a bank, that's a conspiracy by definition. so people conspire to do all sorts of things.

doesn't mean all conspiracies are true. but to assume no one ever conspires is stupid.

and many conspiracies have been proved to be true.

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

yes, and also because many human beings do in fact exhibit criminal minds. if a group of people decide to rob a bank, that's a conspiracy by definition. so people conspire to do all sorts of things.

doesn't mean all conspiracies are true. but to assume no one ever conspires is stupid.

and many conspiracies have been proved to be true.

You are right about that, and what is clear to me is that the majority of people have to pull in the same direction for the good of everyone. I do not mean negative forces, but positive ones that build healthy societies, take care of their own people, and create infrastructure for everyone’s benefit.

That is why I think a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism is a good middle ground. But there are also forces that do not want that, and will try to sabotage every attempt to reach that balance.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

It really isn"t a matter of numbers. If people base themselves on a false premise, then whether there are 10 or 1 million of them makes no difference, their premise is false and therefore they will act upon it without question (which is why I think it is an invalid angle to look at his from the perspective of people having to keep a secret – they don't have any secrets to keep, they believe the story and would not be in a position to verify it if they wanted to).

It does matter when it comes to keeping secrets.

How many people does it take to give the tiers beneath it specific, compartmentalized tasks?

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

That is why I think a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism is a good middle ground.

And nationalism too. IMO socialism can only be national, and nationalism can only be social. No-borderism is a scourge as welfare States can only cater to their own. If I were to pinpoint one idea which has been deleterious in the modern era, it would be globalism, i.e. the endeavour to abolish nations.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

And nationalism too. IMO socialism can only be national, and nationalism can only be social. No-borderism is a scourge as welfare States can only cater to their own. If I were to pinpoint one idea which has been deleterious in the modern era, it would be globalism, i.e. the endeavour to abolish nations.

Well, socialism can work as a tool when it helps bind alliances and partners together around mutual needs. Aid has been used for a long time to build trust, create influence, and open the door to bilateral deals.

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I agree, we lived in the best of times

But I suspect our children probably won't be.

Surely that comment is back to front!

The next generation always seem to live in a better environment than their forebearers!

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It does matter when it comes to keeping secrets.

How many people does it take to give the tiers beneath it specific, compartmentalized tasks?

It can vary greatly according to specific organisations. An SME will have a Managing Director issuing the specifications and goals for a few dozen people, with middle managers dispatching specific tasks. A large corporation will have a CEO giving the general impetus, with several tiers of management disseminating according to a trickle-down process.

To all these people, there are no secrets to keep, just common adherence to a belief and specs, so with respect, to me your premise is invalid.

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Well socialism do work as a tool when you bound allianses and partners who have something you need. Aid have been used for long time to build trust and make bilateral deals

The French model worked well until debt and immigration made the system go off the rails.

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Surely that comment is back to front!

The next generation always seem to live in a better environment than their forebearers!

People generally have more and work less than at any time in the history of the world.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It can vary greatly according to specific organisations. An SME will have a Managing Director issuing the specifications and goals for a few dozen people, with middle managers dispatching specific tasks. A large corporation will have a CEO giving the general impetus, with several tiers of management disseminating according to a trickle-down process.

To all these people, there are no secrets to keep, just common adherence to a belief and specs, so with respect, to me your premise is invalid.

We were talking about the Apollo 11 program.

How many people did it take to write the specs and give the tiers beneath it specific, compartmentalized tasks?

And again, the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander design specifications are public information. A good engineer could show that it could never have worked, if that were true.

Socialism defies human nature. It works great until the wheels fall off.

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Socialism defies human nature. It works great until the wheels fall off.

No system stays pure forever. No ideology, religion, political model, or economic system is immune to time, power, self-interest, and human weakness. A system can work well for a while, when enough people share responsibility, restraint, and a common direction. But once ambition, greed, fear, ego, or tribalism take over, the structure begins to serve the few instead of the whole.

In that sense, human nature often defeats even the best-meant solution. Not because every person is bad, but because status, dominance, and self-preservation are always there beneath the surface. “Silverback syndrome” is a rough but effective way to describe that instinct: the drive to dominate, control, protect position, and rise above others, even at the expense of the group.

20 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The French model worked well until debt and immigration made the system go off the rails.

Nothing is meant to last forever. The whole dynamic of life is rise and fall. In that sense, failure is not always an exception, but a natural part of everything.

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Socialism defies human nature. It works great until the wheels fall off.

Where do you draw the line. Complete self reliance. No guard rails. So much of the way those - other than staunch Trumpists - are painted by a certain part of the right wing media falls into the category of conspiracy theories in my opinion. They make it feel good to call others 'socialists' as though any one who thinks there can be a reasonable role for government requiring taxes is an idealistic fool who can't look after themselves so looks to others.

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

No system stays pure forever. No ideology, religion, political model, or economic system is immune to time, power, self-interest, and human weakness. A system can work well for a while, when enough people share responsibility, restraint, and a common direction. But once ambition, greed, fear, ego, or tribalism take over, the structure begins to serve the few instead of the whole.

In that sense, human nature often defeats even the best-meant solution. Not because every person is bad, but because status, dominance, and self-preservation are always there beneath the surface. “Silverback syndrome” is a rough but effective way to describe that instinct: the drive to dominate, control, protect position, and rise above others, even at the expense of the group.

In the US, the focus is supposed to be on the individual, not the "group". Once we're working for the "group", all is lost.

"Milton Friedman’s "Four Ways to Spend Money" framework illustrates how the relationship between the spender, the money’s owner, and the beneficiary affects economic efficiency. It highlights that spending someone else's money on others (e.g., government spending) is the least efficient method because both cost and quality are ignored.

The Four Ways of Spending:

Own Money on Yourself: You are careful with cost and ensure high quality/value.

Own Money on Someone Else: You are careful about the cost (avoid overspending) but care less about the quality.

Someone Else’s Money on Yourself: You focus on high quality/luxury but ignore the cost.

Someone Else’s Money on Others: Neither cost nor quality is a priority, leading to maximum inefficiency.

Friedman often used this to argue that government spending is inherently inefficient because it falls into the fourth category."

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

We were talking about the Apollo 11 program.

Indeed, and that involves a lot of contractors of various sizes, as you said yourself.

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How many people did it take to write the specs and give the tiers beneath it specific, compartmentalized tasks?

I am sure it is possible to work out rough estimates but again, according to the premise I subscribe to, this is totally irrelevant.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And again, the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander design specifications are public information. A good engineer could show that it could never have worked, if that were true.

Not if the purported lunar parameters are abstract.

---

Here is an example. It is an interview of Thomas J. Kelly, the Chief Project Engineer and later Engineering Manager for Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., which won the contract to build the lunar module in 1962.

Simulations and assumptions were used to establish the specs, and following that, it was all a trickle-down process to the myriads of people involved at lower levels.

One can't read this interview and conclude that Kelly could have been 'in on' any secret, or willingly participating in a hoax. He received guidance from NASA and did his job. What he saw after delivering his project deliverable was the same thing the rest of the world saw, on his TV and in his newspaper.

Well, we had a very wide range of assumptions about the lunar surface, anything from deep dust to hard ice and everything in between, slopes and all that, curbs. So we designed for a combination of these things. We did establish what the maximum touchdown velocities would be. That was ten feet per second vertical and four feet per second horizontal. So with those as the maximum velocities, we also assumed a specific maximum slope of the surface. I think it was six degrees.

With those assumptions, then you layered on the different assumptions about what the surface itself was like. We went through hundreds and hundreds of computer simulations of different combinations of the touchdown conditions and the lunar surface assumptions, and ultimately picked the tread width and landing-gear height that we ended up the final design. I think we assumed two-foot-deep potholes and two-foot-high boulders could be in the area too. So we had all those assumptions. We did a load of computer runs on that, and finally knitted it together into the design that resulted in the final version.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/kellytj-9-19-00.pdf?emrc=3ce5e0

Just now, Yellowtail said:

In the US, the focus is supposed to be on the individual, not the "group". Once we're working for the "group", all is lost.

"Milton Friedman’s "Four Ways to Spend Money" framework illustrates how the relationship between the spender, the money’s owner, and the beneficiary affects economic efficiency. It highlights that spending someone else's money on others (e.g., government spending) is the least efficient method because both cost and quality are ignored.

The Four Ways of Spending:

Own Money on Yourself: You are careful with cost and ensure high quality/value.

Own Money on Someone Else: You are careful about the cost (avoid overspending) but care less about the quality.

Someone Else’s Money on Yourself: You focus on high quality/luxury but ignore the cost.

Someone Else’s Money on Others: Neither cost nor quality is a priority, leading to maximum inefficiency.

Friedman often used this to argue that government spending is inherently inefficient because it falls into the fourth category."

Americans can dislike the word socialism all they want, but they still live by shared burdens. Roads, courts, policing, defense, sanitation, and safety nets are all signs that pure individualism is not enough. That does not make the US socialist in the strict sense, but it does show that no serious society survives without collective funding and mutual obligation. The argument is not capitalism versus socialism in fantasy form, but where to draw the line between markets and the common good.

When safety nets are weak, insecurity grows. And when insecurity grows, distrust in politicians grows with it, companies become more willing to sell out for short-term gain, and political leaders start blaming socialists, immigrants, or whoever makes the easiest target. That is an old pattern: instead of fixing structural problems, they place the blame where public frustration can be most easily directed.

20 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Americans can dislike the word socialism all they want, but they still live by shared burdens. Roads, courts, policing, defense, sanitation, and safety nets are all signs that pure individualism is not enough. That does not make the US socialist in the strict sense, but it does show that no serious society survives without collective funding and mutual obligation. The argument is not capitalism versus socialism in fantasy form, but where to draw the line between markets and the common good.

When safety nets are weak, insecurity grows. And when insecurity grows, distrust in politicians grows with it, companies become more willing to sell out for short-term gain, and political leaders start blaming socialists, immigrants, or whoever makes the easiest target. That is an old pattern: instead of fixing structural problems, they place the blame where public frustration can be most easily directed.

Our Constitution allows and intends for the government to build roads and infrastructure.

It did not intend the government to buy votes with handouts.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

People generally have more and work less than at any time in the history of the world.

What!? Have more debt.

12 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

What!? Have more debt.

And stress, and chronic illness.

10 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

And stress, and chronic illness.

You do not think people suffered from stress and chronic illnesses before? Christ sake they didn't live as long either.

When I was young, 60 years was old physically, and many didn't live many years after retirement

Oh no, the new iPhone came out, and I have to wait until payday to buy it, boo-hoo!

Meanwhile, let's stop twice a day for $6 coffee....

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Oh no, the new iPhone came out, and I have to wait until payday to buy it, boo-hoo!

Meanwhile, let's stop twice a day for $6 coffee....

Compare buying a house now to back in the day. Not sure the availability of addictive phones and social media is such a benefit for the young too.

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Compare buying a house now to back in the day. Not sure the availability of addictive phones and social media is such a benefit for the young too.

In 2025, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 65.7%

In 2015, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 63.7%.

In 2005, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 68.9%.

In 1995, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 64.7%

In 1985, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 63.9%.

In 1975, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 64.6%

In 1965, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 63.3%.

In 1955, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 59%

In 1945, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 53.2%.

In 1955, about 67% of American adults were married

In 2025, about 53% of American adults were married

So, if anything, it should be easier than ever to own a home in the US.

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

In 2025, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 65.7%

In 2015, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 63.7%.

In 2005, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 68.9%.

In 1995, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 64.7%

In 1985, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 63.9%.

In 1975, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 64.6%

In 1965, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 63.3%.

In 1955, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 59%

In 1945, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 53.2%.

In 1955, about 67% of American adults were married

In 2025, about 53% of American adults were married

So, if anything, it should be easier than ever to own a home in the US.

A little detail worth mentioning is that families used to live together on farms and out in the districts far more than they do today. People had fewer needs, lived more simply, and often shared both the burdens and the benefits of everyday life. Today, many work in one place and have family in another, while rent has become almost impossible to manage on a single salary. At the same time, we seem to have developed extreme expectations about how we should live, what we think we need, and what is actually beneficial or necessary for everyone. Maybe the future is, in some ways, a return to the past, with more people living together again and a better balance between what we want and what we truly need.

A more collective way of living does not fit neatly with the capitalist ideal of maximum individual consumption, mobility, and self-contained households. Capitalism works well when more people live separately, buy separately, borrow separately, commute separately, and consume more as individuals. In that sense, shared living, shared resources, and lower material expectations can look more socialistic, or at least more community-oriented, than market-oriented.

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

In 2025, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 65.7%

In 2015, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 63.7%.

In 2005, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 68.9%.

In 1995, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 64.7%

In 1985, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 63.9%.

In 1975, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 64.6%

In 1965, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 63.3%.

In 1955, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 59%

In 1945, the U.S. homeownership rate was approximately 53.2%.

In 1955, about 67% of American adults were married

In 2025, about 53% of American adults were married

So, if anything, it should be easier than ever to own a home in the US.

Hey Off topic but may be an Australian thing.

House price 3 to 4 times wages in 1980. 9 to 10 times 2026.

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Hey Off topic but may be an Australian thing.

House price 3 to 4 times wages in 1980. 9 to 10 times 2026.

And in 1980 Australia, about 70% of adults owned there home, while in 2021 it was about 66%.

It looks like marriage rates in Australia have plummeted over the same period.

People that marry and have children, have different priorities than people that don't.

I wonder how much people spend on travel, events and dining out today, compared to 1980.

Anyone spending $10 a day on coffee, and $30 a day eating, does not care about buying a house.